Wilhelm

I'm not sure Daniel has ratified his claim to enlightenment, though apparently his method for doing so is psychological (do they talk of lacking a central subjective experience, do they acknowledge suffering in their life). That said, I agree completely - I was watching Buddha Boy again yesterday as an article updating his situation came up, and I'm wondering if his was more the opposite issue -> ultra sharp meditation devoid of balancing factors leading to mental illness

That is not how it is in the West An odd assumption to make. I am not planning to list all the classics I have read every time I talk about them... On this much we can find agreement On most other things I think we disagree, so no problem to stop this interaction for now.

Did you know that in the West, for example (I don't know what the situation in the East is), the Tao Te Ching is almost universally seen as a philosophical text, with no implications for spiritual practice? The most common alternative interpretation is that it is also a political text. There are very few people here who read it and see its value in spiritual practice. So have all these people who have read the Tao Te Ching and seen no applications towards spiritual practice made progress towards the Dao? I used this example because many of the other classics like the Yinfu Jing are largely unknown in the West.

There's certainly enough people claiming enlightenment in the West that we (me and whoever is interested in this topic) could collect a few instances of them being challenged on their enlightenment in interviews (I had already started to do this when I was writing the OP but decided not to make the thread specifically about Daniel)

So if I've got this correct, in your view it is necessary to read the 'fundamental classics' to obtain a basic discernment, but it won't be until a further level is reached that we have the discernment to know the entire truth or falsehood of all of the classics (as mentioned in your first post). Is it not possible that our initial readings of the classics will include our own misinterpretations? Does everyone read the Daodejing and the Yinfujing for the first time and come away with the same understanding? To my understanding this approach leaves no option other than to trust the person who's telling you what the correct classics to read are, and to hope or believe that they have enough attainment so as not to mislead you.

Thank you 🙏 this is wonderful

Long story short I think he's a practitioner with some skill and accomplishment (based on his practice logs - he pretty clearly has some skill in concentration) but as he goes by his own interpretations of both his teacher's method as well as the path I have no idea 'where' he really is. Could go into detail with his own descriptions of the experience. He's also inspired thousands to take meditation very seriously, though I don't know what the net benefit has been for even those who've completed his method (i.e. Frank Yang - not to single out this fellow from thousands but he's well known, and also appeared on guru viking). So I'm sympathetic towards him because its amazing how many people have taken meditation seriously because of his work and I believe he's being honest in what he believes, and I also understand the criticisms of how his approach has affected Theravadan Buddhism in the West. 'Big Buddhism' took notice of him enough to put out an article basically writing off him and his approach, as well.

Yeah I had a very similar moment with what I imagine was another school. Bit broad of a stroke to write off an entire discipline cause one school buggered it up though eh?

I agree 🙏 for clarification I am attempting to prompt discussion around a topic that I find interesting as I am between practice sessions and this happens to be a discussion group. This is a remarkable accomplishment indeed - full discernment of truth in all the classics. Is it the sort of accomplishment that requires a teacher's validation? And if not, if it's something that is 'simply known', what's to prevent someone from deluding themself into believing they achieved this accomplishment?

🤣🙏

Very cool insight! I don't practice the Jesus prayer specifically but have never been so Song that I felt my prayers go down to my feet as they occurred 🤔 Btw did you mean to post this in the mind body cultivation thread? If not np, it just seems right on track for that discussion so just checking

Do you think this sort of progression is discernable through self analysis, or is a trusted external party needed?

Wonderful post, thank you 🙏 Yeah I was thinking of talking about that approach specifically in another thread, just for personal interest and maybe clarification:) One man's shame becomes another man's flex 🤣 context is king I lean literalist on this question but also have tendencies towards self delusion and blind faith, and so appreciate your nuanced approach to this topic

Saw that this morning 👍 gonna be a useful reference to make this question more specific if it doesn't get traction

Did you see this in monasteries as well?

Good point! But not really what I'm getting at here. Specifically I was hoping to talk to people who hold different interpretations of what the classics meant - and since the most commonly known accomplishments from the classics are the late stage ones I listed those as examples, but you could apply it to something as straightforward as mindfulness of breath (what is the literal interpretation, how is it metaphorically interpreted and what are the distinctions between the two approaches)

It's true. From what I understand original text is though to be lost with modern translations coming from the fragments. Sounds like more of a historian's problem than a practitioner's to me, so what about changing the question to something that avoids such speculation like - is it effective?

That's just as well, our discussion has long passed its 'best before' date!

Here I'm differentiating the two as separate traditions, as although both traditions share a literal meaning and a root of Bodhidharma they've obviously evolved to become very different today - while I have known the Yi Jin Jing to be associated with Chan I have not heard the same for Zen.

And yet, they both supposedly came from the same man 🤔 Edit: I should say more specifically that my thoughts are relating the Yi Jin Jing to Chan Buddhism, not Zen philosophy - apologies for using the two as complete synonyms until now

I would say if the Yi Jin Jing was simply and exercise system then it either the Zen Patriarch didn't understand enough about the human body to create principles that would continue to be useful today (as he very obviously did with the Chan tradition), or that physical fitness and health in the modern sense wasn't the intention of the Yi Jin Jing.

Well if your interpretation and understanding is correct and he indeed functioned as a modern personal trainer would to the monks of the Shaolin Temple then we can safely conclude that his methods were inefficient as nowhere in the world of modern exercise science is the Yi Jin Jing referenced, and even in China it is not practiced by professional athletes. I would posit an alternative interpretation that as the patriarch of the tradition that became to be known as Zen (aka Chan/Jhana/Dhyana) that his Yi Jin Jing (as well as his Xi Sui Jing) were intended to assist the monks in achieving the state called Zen (aka Chan/Jhana/Dhyana). This would also simplify the issue of figuring out what a personal trainer was doing teaching marrow washing (as in the Xi Sui Jing), and how marrow washing was critical for physical health in the first place!

So if I've got this straight - you believe the man sometimes acknowledged as the greatest Zen Master (and the patriarch of the whole tradition) had a side gig as a personal trainer with a particular obsession with the tendon reflexes?

Why do you think Bodhidharma was concerned with the monks' physical health? Was he acting as a physician for the monks?

I agree that meditation (in terms of simple sitting practice) does not require any prerequisite, but maybe some are useful for most of us. What do you think the Yi Jin Jing was cultivating the body for? Was Bodhidharma an exercise enthusiast as well as Zen master?